Trump handed Putin a stunning victory

Molly K McKew writes: President Donald Trump needed to accomplish two things this week during his visits to Poland and the G-20 Summit in Hamburg. First, he needed to reassure America’s allies that he was committed to collective defense and the core set of values and principles that bind us together. Second, he needed to demonstrate that he understands that the greatest threat to that alliance, those values, and our security is the Kremlin.

Trump delivered neither of these. In very concrete terms, through speech and action, the president signaled a willingness to align the United States with Vladimir Putin’s worldview, and took steps to advance this realignment. He endorsed, nearly in its totality, the narrative the Russian leader has worked so meticulously to construct.

The readout of Trump’s lengthy meeting with Putin included several key points. First, the United States will “move on” from election hacking issues with no accountability or consequences for Russia; in fact, the U.S. will form a “framework” with Russia to cooperate on cybersecurity issues, evaluating weaknesses and assessing potential responses jointly. Second, the two presidents agreed not to meddle in “each other’s” domestic affairs—equating American activities to promote democracy with Russian aggression aimed at undermining it, in an incalculable PR victory for the Kremlin. Third, the announced, limited cease-fire in Syria will be a new basis for cooperation between the U.S. and Russia; Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went so far as to say that the Russian approach in Syria—yielding mass civilian casualties, catastrophic displacement, untold destruction and erased borders—may be “more right” than that of the United States.

Each of these points represents a significant victory for Putin. Each of them will weaken U.S. tools for defending its interests and security from the country that defines itself as America’s “primary adversary.” Trump has ceded the battle space—physical, virtual, moral—to the Kremlin. And the president is going to tell us this is a “win.” [Continue reading…]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwittermail

Comments

  1. Dieter Heymann says:

    There is far too much misreading and misleading about the return of the Crimea to Russia. Perhaps Putin was a bit too hasty to trigger the voting there. However, the US supported coup in Kiev raised the specter for Russia of the potential turning of the Black Sea into essentially a EU, or worse for Russia, a NATO sea. NATO would then control at least 75% of the coastline rendering the Black Sea analogous to the Baltic Sea. Novorissisk would have become the new base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet. That development was thwarted by the return of the Crimea and, even more importantly, Sevastopol to Russia. Putin did not have much time for corrective action.
    Remember that he accepted the earlier “rental” situation from 1999 until 2014. There is no evidence that he attempted a return of the Crimea during these five years as prime minister and president of Russia.
    With the Crimea in Russian hands Russia in essence controls the Northern shore of the Black Sea.
    I am not a supporter of Putin. However, the return of the Crimea to Russia has averted potentially nasty and dangerous confrontations over the Russian Naval Base at Sevastopol. For that reason I am against demanding the return of the Crimea to Ukraine.